![]() | This template was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
![]() | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
http://military.hawarey.org/military_english.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Misconceptions2 ( talk • contribs) 20:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Why is this template being added to almost every single page on Islam ?
This template belongs only in articles that strictly discuss battles/expeditions ordered by Muhammad, main articles on Muhammad or his military career. I'm reverting all unnecessary spam Al-Andalusi ( talk) 19:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
A more appropriate template (or category) to include in articles on Muhammad's companions would be Participants of Battle/Expedition "X". Al-Andalusi ( talk) 20:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
The grey/blue background colour is too dark to make easy reading of the items in the lists. Please can we make it lighter (eg 94BAD2). -- SGBailey ( talk) 20:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
The background of the table makes the template UNREADABLE. Please make a white background with clear black text. -- J. D. Redding 02:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC) Ps., be nice to get the table to a 275px or less width. ... Pps., Template:Islamic Culture is done better than this template, if you wanna keep the background, make the damn text clearer.
ok, i have lightened the background and image so that the text is more noticeable. you can compare. this is old version http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Template:Campaignbox_Campaigns_of_Muhammad&oldid=430837296 -- Misconceptions2 ( talk) 12:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Can't read it still ... I made the links darker and put the tablebackground back to match the image. Maybe the image 'blue' need to be lightened and then match the background to a that light color. -- J. D. Redding 15:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Template:Campaignbox_Campaigns_of_Muhammad&oldid=431843704
i have changed the colour to a darker blue. i think the links should be blue as that is usually standard for the colour of the web links. let me know if you can read it-- Misconceptions2 ( talk) 18:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
You switched it back to a blue. Sigh. 00009c is a Primary (Blue). Why are you doing this? Do you understand the colors need to contrast so you can read it? -- J. D. Redding 10:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
That looks alot better. Readable now. Looks like you edited the image too. Good. I was thinking you wanted to keep the nighttime theme. The reader/audience can see the links clearer I think now. 07:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Does anybody agree how ugly it is now? You can't just copy-cat from another template, as they have different styles. A huge black box is extremely irritating. Sorry :( ~ AdvertAdam talk 07:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. The huge black box is horribly ugly, and very distracting in an article. Why can't it just be plain white? William M. Connolley ( talk) 08:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Personally I don't have any preferences to black or white in this template, but black could be justified as a resembling of the Black Standard Davidelah ( talk) 10:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
M2: it looks like consensus is against you. Could you stop reverting and try to convince people on talk? I for one think the current is better than the black, though I would be even happier with plain black-on-white William M. Connolley ( talk) 08:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
anyway. i have took it back to blue. when it was blue. people complained that links where to light. so now made links much darker. -- Misconceptions2 ( talk) 14:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
((( Just so folk know, after several days of staring at this template - which I know has "an image" at the top of it - I've just realised that it a chap on a horse waving a flag with a giant birdie beside him. I seriously hadn't managed to work out what I was looking at before - maybe the lighter background colur has helped! Doh. -- SGBailey ( talk) 15:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC) )))
This isn't about the template, but this may be the most convenient place to talk. There are too many trivial pages about minor campaigns. They would be far better as a smaller number of longer pages that actually said something William M. Connolley ( talk) 14:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
A probable edit war [1] [2] [3] is noticed involving Misconceptions2 and Al-Andalusi on Burning of Mosque in a question of WP:OR. Please talk, before doing further edit on the matter. » nafSadh did say 16:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
So, Al-A said 2 men burning a mosque with a lighted palm branch is hardly a campaign. Let us compare, then, Raid of Sa'd ibn Zaid al-Ashhali: all that happened there is that an idol is destroyed and a helpless woman is killed. That one, obviously, is even less a "campaign". Unless there is some clear criterion as to was is part of the "campaign" then the entire template is effectively OR William M. Connolley ( talk) 21:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
@Andalusi, why do you keep adding that they wanted to defeat Muhammad? The source does say it here , but Ibn Kathir explains what he meant by this. By adding that they wanted to defeat him, you want to mislead people by making them think they wanted to kill him? right, as that is more apologetical. But source makes it clear that they did NOT want to kill him. just expel him ! so i am unhappy with the part which says they wanted to "to fight and defeat Muhammad and his message" , please add that they did not want to kill him. Since if you expel someone you cant kill them now can you? Or i will add it myself-- Misconceptions2 ( talk) 21:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
As for the debate about what is a campaign and what is not. I have also redirected another template called "expeditions of muhammad" to this template. So i think this justifies adding anything which sources label as expeditions !, to this box -- Misconceptions2 ( talk) 21:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Talk here has become somewhat incivil on Al-A's part. I've asked him to redact his incivil comments. I'm going to leave this for a little while in the hope that he does William M. Connolley ( talk) 07:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
@William, i see disputes in the future. Would you support changing the name of the template to "Armed missions of Muhammad" or "Muhammad and armed Missions"???-- Misconceptions2 ( talk) 20:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I have left a message on an obvious crietia. I have also made a suggestion. Please let me know if you back the suggestion about changing the name to something which makes the criteria more obvious. This dispute is mainly between me, and Al-A about whether the demolition of Masjid al Dirar can be included in the template. I think this case is same as the Expedition of Abu Sufyan ibn Harb, which is also called the Demolition of al-Lat. The article in dispute is also a demolition article-- Misconceptions2 ( talk) 21:56, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Added Template:Hadith authenticity to some of the articles per WP:MOSISLAM#Hadith:
Al-Andalusi ( talk) 21:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh the hypocrisy. Al-Andalusi ( talk) 23:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
So, what happened? Al-A tagged a pile of articles, presumably because he thought there were problems. Have I missed the follow-up on talk pages where he discussed what those problems were in detail, and attempted to resolve them? William M. Connolley ( talk) 21:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
@ Misconceptions2: In any case, that doesn't even support that "al-Shafi'i considered all maghazi accounts related by Ibn Ishaq to be authentic because of his theory on naskh." neither that this was due to his theory on naskh. 23:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC) CounterTime ( talk)
@ Misonceptions2, Eperoton, and Al-Andalusi: and others, what is the purpose of this box if List of expeditions of Muhammad already exists, and already serves the purpose of this box?
17:57, 2 April 2016 (UTC) CounterTime ( talk)
![]() | This template was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
![]() | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
http://military.hawarey.org/military_english.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Misconceptions2 ( talk • contribs) 20:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Why is this template being added to almost every single page on Islam ?
This template belongs only in articles that strictly discuss battles/expeditions ordered by Muhammad, main articles on Muhammad or his military career. I'm reverting all unnecessary spam Al-Andalusi ( talk) 19:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
A more appropriate template (or category) to include in articles on Muhammad's companions would be Participants of Battle/Expedition "X". Al-Andalusi ( talk) 20:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
The grey/blue background colour is too dark to make easy reading of the items in the lists. Please can we make it lighter (eg 94BAD2). -- SGBailey ( talk) 20:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
The background of the table makes the template UNREADABLE. Please make a white background with clear black text. -- J. D. Redding 02:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC) Ps., be nice to get the table to a 275px or less width. ... Pps., Template:Islamic Culture is done better than this template, if you wanna keep the background, make the damn text clearer.
ok, i have lightened the background and image so that the text is more noticeable. you can compare. this is old version http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Template:Campaignbox_Campaigns_of_Muhammad&oldid=430837296 -- Misconceptions2 ( talk) 12:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Can't read it still ... I made the links darker and put the tablebackground back to match the image. Maybe the image 'blue' need to be lightened and then match the background to a that light color. -- J. D. Redding 15:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Template:Campaignbox_Campaigns_of_Muhammad&oldid=431843704
i have changed the colour to a darker blue. i think the links should be blue as that is usually standard for the colour of the web links. let me know if you can read it-- Misconceptions2 ( talk) 18:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
You switched it back to a blue. Sigh. 00009c is a Primary (Blue). Why are you doing this? Do you understand the colors need to contrast so you can read it? -- J. D. Redding 10:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
That looks alot better. Readable now. Looks like you edited the image too. Good. I was thinking you wanted to keep the nighttime theme. The reader/audience can see the links clearer I think now. 07:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Does anybody agree how ugly it is now? You can't just copy-cat from another template, as they have different styles. A huge black box is extremely irritating. Sorry :( ~ AdvertAdam talk 07:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. The huge black box is horribly ugly, and very distracting in an article. Why can't it just be plain white? William M. Connolley ( talk) 08:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Personally I don't have any preferences to black or white in this template, but black could be justified as a resembling of the Black Standard Davidelah ( talk) 10:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
M2: it looks like consensus is against you. Could you stop reverting and try to convince people on talk? I for one think the current is better than the black, though I would be even happier with plain black-on-white William M. Connolley ( talk) 08:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
anyway. i have took it back to blue. when it was blue. people complained that links where to light. so now made links much darker. -- Misconceptions2 ( talk) 14:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
((( Just so folk know, after several days of staring at this template - which I know has "an image" at the top of it - I've just realised that it a chap on a horse waving a flag with a giant birdie beside him. I seriously hadn't managed to work out what I was looking at before - maybe the lighter background colur has helped! Doh. -- SGBailey ( talk) 15:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC) )))
This isn't about the template, but this may be the most convenient place to talk. There are too many trivial pages about minor campaigns. They would be far better as a smaller number of longer pages that actually said something William M. Connolley ( talk) 14:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
A probable edit war [1] [2] [3] is noticed involving Misconceptions2 and Al-Andalusi on Burning of Mosque in a question of WP:OR. Please talk, before doing further edit on the matter. » nafSadh did say 16:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
So, Al-A said 2 men burning a mosque with a lighted palm branch is hardly a campaign. Let us compare, then, Raid of Sa'd ibn Zaid al-Ashhali: all that happened there is that an idol is destroyed and a helpless woman is killed. That one, obviously, is even less a "campaign". Unless there is some clear criterion as to was is part of the "campaign" then the entire template is effectively OR William M. Connolley ( talk) 21:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
@Andalusi, why do you keep adding that they wanted to defeat Muhammad? The source does say it here , but Ibn Kathir explains what he meant by this. By adding that they wanted to defeat him, you want to mislead people by making them think they wanted to kill him? right, as that is more apologetical. But source makes it clear that they did NOT want to kill him. just expel him ! so i am unhappy with the part which says they wanted to "to fight and defeat Muhammad and his message" , please add that they did not want to kill him. Since if you expel someone you cant kill them now can you? Or i will add it myself-- Misconceptions2 ( talk) 21:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
As for the debate about what is a campaign and what is not. I have also redirected another template called "expeditions of muhammad" to this template. So i think this justifies adding anything which sources label as expeditions !, to this box -- Misconceptions2 ( talk) 21:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Talk here has become somewhat incivil on Al-A's part. I've asked him to redact his incivil comments. I'm going to leave this for a little while in the hope that he does William M. Connolley ( talk) 07:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
@William, i see disputes in the future. Would you support changing the name of the template to "Armed missions of Muhammad" or "Muhammad and armed Missions"???-- Misconceptions2 ( talk) 20:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I have left a message on an obvious crietia. I have also made a suggestion. Please let me know if you back the suggestion about changing the name to something which makes the criteria more obvious. This dispute is mainly between me, and Al-A about whether the demolition of Masjid al Dirar can be included in the template. I think this case is same as the Expedition of Abu Sufyan ibn Harb, which is also called the Demolition of al-Lat. The article in dispute is also a demolition article-- Misconceptions2 ( talk) 21:56, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Added Template:Hadith authenticity to some of the articles per WP:MOSISLAM#Hadith:
Al-Andalusi ( talk) 21:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh the hypocrisy. Al-Andalusi ( talk) 23:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
So, what happened? Al-A tagged a pile of articles, presumably because he thought there were problems. Have I missed the follow-up on talk pages where he discussed what those problems were in detail, and attempted to resolve them? William M. Connolley ( talk) 21:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
@ Misconceptions2: In any case, that doesn't even support that "al-Shafi'i considered all maghazi accounts related by Ibn Ishaq to be authentic because of his theory on naskh." neither that this was due to his theory on naskh. 23:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC) CounterTime ( talk)
@ Misonceptions2, Eperoton, and Al-Andalusi: and others, what is the purpose of this box if List of expeditions of Muhammad already exists, and already serves the purpose of this box?
17:57, 2 April 2016 (UTC) CounterTime ( talk)